No, it really isn't. — Bartricks

Clearly you have not tried meditation.

What reason could we have for submitting ourselves, as slaves, to truths that would merely destroy our well-being (if there are such truths)? — Janus

Indeed. Why truth? Why not untruth? It seems natural enough to try and make sense of the pride we take in possessing the truth not just for ourselves but for others as well. It seems plausible that truth-for-all is related to adapting as a group to our environment. While I don't accept pragmatism's reduction of truth to what is useful to believe, I also can't accept some transcendent Truth as a vague god.

As insanity involves some kind of systematic failure to listen to Reason in some or other regard, it is possible to be a true philosopher and insane. — Bartricks

This is an interesting theme. It reminds me of a play.

Therefore, An Enemy of the People tells the story of a man who dares to speak an unpalatable truth, and is punished for it. However, Ibsen took a somewhat skeptical view of his protagonist, suggesting that he may have gone too far in his zeal to tell the truth. Ibsen wrote to his publisher: "I am still uncertain as to whether I should call [An Enemy of the People] a comedy or a straight drama. It may [have] many traits of comedy, but it also is based on a serious idea." — wiki

We are familiar with the notion of the thinker ahead of his time or beyond his local community. From our loftly point of view, we see that the truth-teller was right and yet unrecognized. So, from our POV, sanity was misrecognized as madness. When you capitalize 'reason,' that suggest to me that you are trying make this principle 'infinite' and think from the absolute end of inquiry, from a God's point of view. Your 'Reason' looks to me like the deity of a monotheistic humanism. The philosopher ought to die if necessary in pursuit of the POV of this deity. Take up your cross (the capital T) and follow, says Reason. I am the way, the light, the truth. None come to the Father Truth except by me.

But there are problems with this. One has to assume that philosophy can be resolved without ambiguity. That human language isn't haunted by metaphoricity and ambiguity, that we aren't essentially mythological as opposed to metaphysical beings, that a metaphysics transcending myth and metaphoricity is possible. Cases have been made against these assumptions.

One problem I see with scientism is that its defense within philosophy to some degree violates its own principles. Scientism within philosophy is a kind of rhetoric that wants to understand itself as logical. Writing 'Reason' instead of 'reason' is a naked rhetorical and mythological device, and yet this device is used against feel-good framings of existence as bunk.

I sit around thinking nothing all the time. It's easy.

LOL. Touche. A fitting finale.

LOL, this thread.

I take philosophy to be inquiry into what's true — Bartricks

"When people search for something, the likely outcome is that either they find it or, not finding it, they accept that it cannot be found, or they continue to search. So also in the case of what is sought in philosophy, I think, some people have claimed to have found the truth, others have asserted that it cannot be apprehended, and others are still searching. Those who think that they have found it are the Dogmatists, properly so called-for example, the followers of Aristotle and Epicurus, the Stoics, and certain others. The followers of Cleitomachus and Carneades, as well as other Academics, have asserted that it cannot be apprehended. The Skeptics continue to search. Hence it is with reason
that the main types of philosophy are thought to be three in number: the Dogmatic, the Academic, and the Skeptic."
--Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 1 (Translated by Benson Mates, Oxford University Press, New York Oxford 1996)

and its method to be reasoned argument.

I believe some cynics would disagree with that one.

So, if all that can be said about a stoic worldview is that it has therapeutic benefits, then it is not a worldview that should interest a true philosopher. A true philosophy wants to know what's true and hang the consequences.

"Now the Stoics and some others say that there are three parts of philosophy, namely, the logical, the physical, and the ethical; and they begin their instruction with the logical part, even though there has been much dispute about the proper place to begin."
-Ibid. book 2, ch. 2

So. Apparently there's more to the stoic view besides "therapeutic benefits".

Even if it is more specific - that is, if it involves the cultivation of particular character traits - then these character traits will either be ones we have independent reason to think are character traits we ought to cultivate, or they will not be. If the former, then the view remains banal - for it is saying no more than that it is good to cultivate good character traits. If the latter, then it is most likely false. For if the character traits are ones that we seem to have moral reason not to cultivate - that is, if Stoicism makes prescriptions that seem to fly in the face of Reason's prescriptions - then it is most likely false, for it is what Reason says that is the philosopher's touchstone, not what some theory says.

Ah, reason! OK.

"Those who rate pleasure as the supreme ideal hold that the Good is a matter of the senses; but we Stoics maintain that it is a matter of the understanding, and we assign it to the mind. If the senses were to pass judgment on what is good, we should never reject any pleasure; for there is no pleasure that does not attract, no pleasure that does not please. Conversely, we should undergo no pain voluntarily; for there is no pain that does not clash with the senses. Besides, those who are too fond of pleasure and those who fear pain to the greatest degree would in that case not deserve reproof. But we condemn men who are slaves to their appetites and their lusts, and we scorn men who, through fear of pain, will dare no manly deed. But what wrong could such men be committing if they looked merely to the senses as arbiters of good and evil? For it is to the senses that you and yours have entrusted the test of things to be sought and things to be avoided!

Reason, however, is surely the governing element in such a matter as this; as reason has made the decision concerning the happy life, and concerning virtue and honour also, so she has made the decision with regard to good and evil. For with them the vilest part is allowed to give sentence about the better, so that the senses – dense as they are, and dull, and even more sluggish in man than in the other animals, – pass judgment on the Good."
-Seneca the Younger, "Moral Letters to Lucilius", letter 124
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_124

As an example of the latter, take the view - often associated with Stoicism - that it is irrational to feel grief for those who have died.

"I am grieved to hear that your friend Flaccus is dead, but I would not have you sorrow more than is fitting. That you should not mourn at all I shall hardly dare to insist; and yet I know that it is the better way. But what man will ever be so blessed with that ideal steadfastness of soul, unless he has already risen far above the reach of Fortune? Even such a man will be stung by an event like this, but it will be only a sting. We, however, may be forgiven for bursting into tears, if only our tears have not flowed to excess, and if we have checked them by our own efforts. Let not the eyes be dry when we have lost a friend, nor let them overflow. We may weep, but we must not wail."
-Ibid. letter 63
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_63

(he also writes about the topic in his "Ad Marciam, De consolatione". He advises the same course of action there)

In this way, then, it seems to me that Stoicism is going either to be banal, or false, or not really a philosophy at all.

It seems to me you didn't do your homework on the stoics. I'll just stick with the attack on stoicism by Sextus Empiricus. Much more thorough even though he didn't claim that stoicism wasn't a philosophy... That's just weird. I mean, Zeno of Citium (founder of stoicism) was a student of Crates of Thebes, who was a student of Diogenes of Sinope. And its claimed that Diogenes was a student of Antisthenes who was a student of Socrates. As in, the guy featured as the main character in Plato's dialogues. Hard to deny that stoicism actually was a part of the tradition with such a pedigree.

First, I never claimed that Stoicism was not a philosophy. Indeed, I said in numerous places that I am not denying there are Stoic philosophers.

But, as a philosophy, we can put all therapeutic claims to one side. That is, when we challenge the Stoic to defend their claims - that is, to show us the evidence in their support - we must be on guard, for almost invariably the Stoic will try and change the subject and tell us how beneficial it is for us to believe the things they believe. When that happens we must tell them in no uncertain terms to shut up and stick to philosophy.

"When people search for something, the likely outcome is that either they find it or, not finding it, they accept that it cannot be found, or they continue to search. So also in the case of what is sought in philosophy, I think, some people have claimed to have found the truth, others have asserted that it cannot be apprehended, and others are still searching. Those who think that they have found it are the Dogmatists, properly so called-for example, the followers of Aristotle and Epicurus, the Stoics, and certain others. The followers of Cleitomachus and Carneades, as well as other Academics, have asserted that it cannot be apprehended. The Skeptics continue to search. Hence it is with reason
that the main types of philosophy are thought to be three in number: the Dogmatic, the Academic, and the Skeptic."
--Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 1 (Translated by Benson Mates, Oxford University Press, New York Oxford 1996) — Ying

Pyschology, not philosophy.

and its method to be reasoned argument.

I believe some cynics would disagree with that one. — Ying

How? If they have a case, then they're appealing to Reason. If they don't, who cares - they're just asserting things.

"Now the Stoics and some others say that there are three parts of philosophy, namely, the logical, the physical, and the ethical; and they begin their instruction with the logical part, even though there has been much dispute about the proper place to begin."
-Ibid. book 2, ch. 2

So. Apparently there's more to the stoic view besides "therapeutic benefits". — Ying

Yes, I know - read the OP.

As to these three parts - what do you understand them to be or mean?

Anyway, stop quoting others and put some skin in the game: what do you think philosophy is, if not the use of reason to discover the truth?

I mean, would you accept that someone who just describes a world view - who just insists there's a choir of gods above us and that we all have overwhelming reason to give him 10% of our income - and insists it is true without providing any of his claims with reasoned support is not a philosopher?

I would.

And how does this person differ from a true philosopher?

Both sincerely believe in the truth of their claims. But why is one a philosopher and the other not?

Answer: because the philosopher appeals to Reason whereas the other just insists that things are so because they say so, or becusae there's a long tradition of believing these things in this neck of the woods.

So, again, a true philosopher is someone who undertakes to use reason to find out what's true.

If you think otherwise, tell me what a philosopher is, and tell me what you'd describe a rational truth-seeker as if not a philosopher.

Ah, reason! OK. — Ying

Why a dismissive 'ok'? What do you use to find out what's true then, eh? Do you just guess? Do you just defer to your elders? Do you just blindly believe what the nearest whiffy unwashed wannabe guru tells you?

It seems to me you didn't do your homework on the stoics. — Ying

Take me to school then.

Your 'Reason' looks to me like the deity of a monotheistic humanism. The philosopher ought to die if necessary in pursuit of the POV of this deity. Take up your cross (the capital T) and follow, says Reason. I am the way, the light, the truth. None come to the Father Truth except by me. — Eee

Yes, that's the gist. Although what we ought to do and what a philosopher does qua philosopher are not necessarily the same. That was my point about how it is possible to be insane and a philosopher. For a philosopher is interested in the truth - and as Reason is our only guide to what's true, the philosopher dedicates him/herself to listening to what Reason says about what's true. But Reason doesn't just talk about the truth, but also about how we ought to behave. And it is in this way that the possibility of an insane philosopher emerges. For someone may be tracking very well what Reason says about truth, but systematically failing to track in any coherent way what she says about other things, and in that way may qualify as insane. For example, a philosopher is very sensitive to epistemic reasons, but they may be very insensitive to instrumental reasons - and they may be insensitive to the latter in such a way as to qualify as mad.

Another example: take ethics. A philosopher is interested in what's true about both the content and nature of ethics. But - pace the Stoics and Socrates - knowing what is right does not entail that one will do what is right. Understanding that one has reason to behave in a certain way, does not guarantee that one will. Thus, an ethicist may be immoral.

But there are problems with this. One has to assume that philosophy can be resolved without ambiguity. That human language isn't haunted by metaphoricity and ambiguity, that we aren't essentially mythological as opposed to metaphysical beings, that a metaphysics transcending myth and metaphoricity is possible. Cases have been made against these assumptions. — Eee

I don't know what you mean. Let's just focus on one of those bizarre assumptions that you insist I must make, namely that we "aren't essentially mythological as opposed to metaphysical beings". Now, what do you mean? Do you mean that I have to assume I exist? Well, a) I don't have to make that assumption - all I have to assume is that there are truths and that our reason is our source of insight into them - and b) it is an extremely safe assumption, given that I clearly do exist.

First, I never claimed that Stoicism was not a philosophy. — Bartricks

Yes you did. :p

Pyschology, not philosophy.

You do realize that Sextus Empiricus was a sceptic, right? Oh, let me guess. Scepticism also isn't a philosophy.

How? If they have a case, then they're appealing to Reason. If they don't, who cares - they're just asserting things.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D2

As to these three parts - what do you understand them to be or mean?

You can read about those in the "Outlines of Pyrrhonism". Sextus Empiricus is rather thorough in his attacks on stoicism.

Anyway, stop quoting others and put some skin in the game:

No. Actually checking what the stoics said might just be relevant to the discussion. Prevents the whole "straw man" nonsense.

what do you think philosophy is, if not the use of reason to discover the truth?

-A tradition beginning with Thales of Milete in the west, "Vedas" in India and the "I Ching" in China.
-A "love of wisdom". Cliche definition, sure. I blame Pythagoras of Samos for that one.
-An umbrella term, like "science", which encompasses various sub disciplines like epistemology, ontology, ethics, aesthetics, etc.

I mean, would you accept that someone who just describes a world view - who just insists there's a choir of gods above us and that we all have overwhelming reason to give him 10% of our income - and insists it is true without providing any of his claims with reasoned support is not a philosopher?

I would.

And how does this person differ from a true philosopher?

Depends. Are we talking about Scotsmen?

Why a dismissive 'ok'?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because the stoics also claim "reason" to be their main guiding tool? Didn't I post a quote about that earlier?

What do you use to find out what's true then, eh?

The internet. Obviously.

Take me to school then.

Done.

First, I never claimed that Stoicism was not a philosophy. — Bartricks
Yes you did. :p — Ying

No I didn't. There are some people who claim to be philosophers, but are not. And some of them would claim to be Stoics. But I am not thereby claiming that there is no philosophy known as Stoicism or that there are not Stoic philosophers.

You do realize that Sextus Empiricus was a sceptic, right? — Ying

Relevance?

Oh, let me guess. Scepticism also isn't a philosophy. — Ying

What do you understand by scepticism? Does a sceptic defend their scepticism using reason, or do they just assert it? If the former, then there are sceptical philosophers (and - for the record - I believe there most certainly are philosopher sceptics). Normally sceptics are sceptics about a particular domain, not about everything. But I accept that there can be philosophical sceptics about everything, I just believe their position is incoherent. Note, in claiming that their position is incoherent, I am not denying that it is a philosophy.

As to these three parts - what do you understand them to be or mean?

You can read about those in the "Outlines of Pyrrhonism". Sextus Empiricus is rather thorough in his attacks on stoicism. — Ying

That's homework and you know already that I don't do my homework - I thought you were going to take me to school? Teach me - tell me what you understand that gnomic quote to mean.

No. Actually checking what the stoics said might just be relevant to the discussion. Prevents the whole "straw man" nonsense. — Ying

When I attributed to the Stoics the view that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance, was I attacking a straw man?

When I attributed to the Stoics the view that grief is irrational, was I attacking a straw man?

I think you don't know what you're talking about and you're about to go off in a huff any. second. now.

Take me to school then.

Done. — Ying

No, not done at all. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Then there's Ying - he does neither.

A true philosopher uses reason to discover the truth regardless of whether there are any therapeutic benefits to doing so. — Bartricks

Gibberish and patently false. As self-directed individuals, humans use reason to discover and uncover truths about themselves in the world. Those motivations provide for goals and personal pleasure.

If realizing Truth was not personally pleasurable, why would one pursue it, for the agony of it?

Philosophy is not a mutually exclusive exercise for people....don't dichotomize.

Didn't you say:

"So, I submit that Stoicism is either the label for a therapy and not a philoosphy..."

Oh wait. No, you're right. You where implying it wasn't a "philoosphy". OK, my bad.

The relevance of me stating that Sextus Empiricus was a sceptic? Oh your accusation that his definition of philosophy is some sort of "psychology" as opposed to philosophy. I was guessing you missed the part where he wasn't a stoic.

Also, you got your definition of classical scepticism wrong.

"Scepticism is an ability, or mental attitude, which opposes appearances to judgements in any way whatsoever, with the result that, owing to the equipollence of the objects and reasons thus opposed, we are brought firstly to a state of mental suspense and next to a state of "unperturbedness" or quietude. Now we call it an "ability" not in any subtle sense, but simply in respect of its "being able.""
-Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 4.

That's homework and you know already that I don't do my homework - I thought you were going to take me to school? Teach me - tell me what you understand that gnomic quote to mean.

Are we reenacting this SNL skit but with philosophy instead of drugs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeTCTARJZm8&feature=youtu.be&t=46

When I attributed to the Stoics the view that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance, was I attacking a straw man?

Basically, yeah.

When I attributed to the Stoics the view that grief is irrational, was I attacking a straw man?

Yeah, lots of straw there too.

I think you don't know what you're talking about

Well, to be fair, I really don't know that much about "philoosphy"...

and you're about to go off in a huff any. second. now.

I'm about to go, yeah.

No, not done at all. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

There are at least three parties in a public discussion. At least 2 interlocutors and the audience. I'll let them decide on this one.

Didn't you say:

"So, I submit that Stoicism is either the label for a therapy and not a philoosphy..."

Oh wait. No, you're right. You where implying it wasn't a "philoosphy". OK, my bad. — Ying

Er, why did you quote the first bit and not the rest??? I said that Stoicism is either therapy, banal or false. Three possibilities. Three. Not one. Three.

Stoic number 1: "Believing X, Y and Z will make you psychologically robust in the face of reversals of fortune".

He/she is not a philosopher, but a therapist.

Stoic number 2: "It is good to be virtuous because being good involves possessing and exercising the virtues"

He/she is a philosopher, but his/her view is banal

Stoic number 3: "All wrongdoing is a product of ignorance because wrongdoing harms us and no-one would knowingly harm him/herself".

He/she is also a philosopher, but his/her view is false.

Also, you got your definition of classical scepticism wrong. — Ying

I didn't offer one - I asked you what you understood it to mean. I know how I use the term, but I haven't a clue how you do.

Why do you keep quoting Sextus at me? Just say what you mean.

Gibberish and patently false. — 3017amen

Gibberish can't be false.

And it isn't gibberish. It is a coherent statement.

And it isn't false. It is true.

You have failed.

And you have passed the false-dichotomy test.

The ironic thing, is cognitive science/psychology 101 warns against dichotomization.
LOL

You are right, there will always be controversy in defining what 'good' is.
There is nothing banal about considering how to live as well as we can, cultivating certain virtues.

Given that the discussion is about Stoicism, here's an Introducion to the 4 cardinal virtues:

1. Wisdom
2. Courage
3. Justice
4. Temperance — Amity

:smile:

Thanks. The cardinal virtues don't really address good in a moral sense do they? They seem more behavior-oriented. Someone who is wise, courageous, just and lives a life of moderation is observably "good". The theoretical basis of these behaviors are being sidestepped.

It was a trichotomy. And it wasn't false. Failed again.

There are at least three parties in a public discussion. At least 2 interlocutors and the audience. I'll let them decide on this one. — Ying

Why? Shouldn't the most informed person decide? And you've just said - and demonstrated - that you do not know much philosophy. For the claims I attributed to the Stoics are well known Stoic claims (which isn't to say that every Stoic would make them, but that they are associated with the view).

And how is the audience a party to the discussion? They're not involved, it's just being done in front of them.

Anyway, it is huff time for you - you're overdue.

I didn't offer one - I asked you what you understood it to mean. I know how I use the term, but I haven't a clue how you do.

Why do you keep quoting Sextus at me? Just say what you mean. — Bartricks

Fine. Scepticism is the school of thought founded by Pyrrho of Elis. The generally accepted narrative claims that he was influenced by his encounters with the magi and gymnosophists whom he met during his travels with Alexander the Great. Most folks tend to forget that he also traveled with Anaxarchus of Abdera, a student of Diogenes of Smyrna. Diogenes was a student of Metrodorus of Chios, who studied under Democritus of Abdera (the atomism guy. He also was really happy, advocating "Euesto" and "Euthymia" as ways of life). Anyway, Metrodorus might have been a proto sceptic, and I find it hard to believe that Anaxarchus never talked to Pyrrho about his philosophical pedigree (I wasn't there though, so I don't actually know that. I'll just postpone judgement about that one then). Anyway, you know about Platos Academy right? Well, there was a period where the place was run by sceptics, the most prominent being Carneades and Arcesilaus. The main source on classical scepticism is Sextus Empiricus though, who wrote his works centuries later. Pyrrho's brand of scepticism is called "pyrrhonic scepticism", Carneades and Arcesilaus represent academic scepticism. Sextus Empiricus was a proponent of pyrrhonic scepticism. Both schools advocate the suspension of judgement, but the academics conceded that certain issues could be more (or less) plausible than others. Pyrrhonics just postpone judgement on "non evident matters" to attain "unperturbedness" or "ataraxia" and don't bother with the plausibility of non-evident claims.

Why? Shouldn't the most informed person decide? — Bartricks

OK fine. You're wrong. There. Happy?

And you've just said - and demonstrated - that you do not know much philosophy.

No, I stated that I really don't know that much about "philoosphy". Never said that I don't know much about philosophy. Subtle difference.

I do not know why you are telling me about Sextus or about scepticism.

I have said that philosophy involves using reason to discover what's true.

You've then started talking about Sextus and scepticism.

I am not sure of the relevance.

Hence why you need to listen to reason, not yourself. — Bartricks

"I learned freedom of will and undeviating steadiness of purpose; and to look to nothing else, not even for a moment, except to reason..."

-Marcus Aurelius

I take philosophy to be inquiry into what's true — Bartricks

"When people search for something, the likely outcome is that either they find it or, not finding it, they accept that it cannot be found, or they continue to search. So also in the case of what is sought in philosophy, I think, some people have claimed to have found the truth, others have asserted that it cannot be apprehended, and others are still searching. Those who think that they have found it are the Dogmatists, properly so called-for example, the followers of Aristotle and Epicurus, the Stoics, and certain others. The followers of Cleitomachus and Carneades, as well as other Academics, have asserted that it cannot be apprehended. The Skeptics continue to search. Hence it is with reason that the main types of philosophy are thought to be three in number: the Dogmatic, the Academic, and the Skeptic."
--Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 1 (Translated by Benson Mates, Oxford University Press, New York Oxford 1996) — Ying

Pyschology, not philosophy. — Bartricks

You do realize that Sextus Empiricus was a sceptic, right? Oh, let me guess. Scepticism also isn't a philosophy. — Ying

What do you understand by scepticism? Does a sceptic defend their scepticism using reason, or do they just assert it? If the former, then there are sceptical philosophers (and - for the record - I believe there most certainly are philosopher sceptics). Normally sceptics are sceptics about a particular domain, not about everything. But I accept that there can be philosophical sceptics about everything, I just believe their position is incoherent. Note, in claiming that their position is incoherent, I am not denying that it is a philosophy. — Bartricks

Also, you got your definition of classical scepticism wrong.

"Scepticism is an ability, or mental attitude, which opposes appearances to judgements in any way whatsoever, with the result that, owing to the equipollence of the objects and reasons thus opposed, we are brought firstly to a state of mental suspense and next to a state of "unperturbedness" or quietude. Now we call it an "ability" not in any subtle sense, but simply in respect of its "being able.""
-Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 4. — Ying

I didn't offer one - I asked you what you understood it to mean. I know how I use the term, but I haven't a clue how you do.

Why do you keep quoting Sextus at me? Just say what you mean. — Bartricks

Fine. Scepticism is the school of thought founded by Pyrrho of Elis. The generally accepted narrative claims that he was influenced by his encounters with the magi and gymnosophists whom he met during his travels with Alexander the Great. Most folks tend to forget that he also traveled with Anaxarchus of Abdera, a student of Diogenes of Smyrna. Diogenes was a student of Metrodorus of Chios, who studied under Democritus of Abdera (the atomism guy. He also was really happy, advocating "Euesto" and "Euthymia" as ways of life). Anyway, Metrodorus might have been a proto sceptic, and I find it hard to believe that Anaxarchus never talked to Pyrrho about his philosophical pedigree (I wasn't there though, so I don't actually know that. I'll just postpone judgement about that one then). Anyway, you know about Platos Academy right? Well, there was a period where the place was run by sceptics, the most prominent being Carneades and Arcesilaus. The main source on classical scepticism is Sextus Empiricus though, who wrote his works centuries later. Pyrrho's brand of scepticism is called "pyrrhonic scepticism", Carneades and Arcesilaus represent academic scepticism. Sextus Empiricus was a proponent of pyrrhonic scepticism. Both schools advocate the suspension of judgement, but the academics conceded that certain issues could be more (or less) plausible than others. Pyrrhonics just postpone judgement on "non evident matters" to attain "unperturbedness" or "ataraxia" and don't bother with the plausibility of non-evident claims. — Ying

The point? Well, you stated that you take philosophy to be an inquiry into what's true. I decided to offer a counter point with the quote I provided. We then went off on a tangent about scepticism in general. I'll concede that our little side discussion after the initial salvo wasn't particularly relevant to the main issue though. :)

was a trichotomy. And it wasn't false. Failed again.
9h — Bartricks

Agreed again, and like others have advised, we failed to see your logic.
LOL

Be well

Thanks. The cardinal virtues don't really address good in a moral sense do they? They seem more behavior-oriented. Someone who is wise, courageous, just and lives a life of moderation is observably "good". The theoretical basis of these behaviors are being sidestepped. — TheMadFool

I would suggest that actual goodness is superior to theoretical goodness, in the sense that the purpose of goodness is exactly to be realized or enacted. So a practical ethic that realizes some good is superior to the practice of theoretical ethics. Exactly in this sense that Stoicism, yes it has many dimensions, but always the bottom line is that it guides personal development in a practical sense.

Stoics think grief is irrational. — Bartricks

No we don't. Look up what Temperence actually means before you start mouthing off about things you know nothing about it would seem. Stoicism would be awful if it was anything like you described. Fortunately it isnt but that just means either you refuse to learn enough about it to effectively critique it or you do but are misrepresenting it in order to trick people into your perspective. Either way this is my last comment on such a churlish and incorrect response to stoicism.

Again, relevance?

I said that philosophy is the project of using reason to discover the truth.

You then provide a quote that makes a different point - a point about the attitudes of truth-seekers.

You then tell me that the author of the quote was a sceptic.

I do not understand the relevance of either the quote or scepticism, but as you also asked whether I considered scepticism a philosophy, I said something about it - namely that, as I understand 'scepticism', it is, or can be a philosophy if the sceptic believes their position is supported by reason.

You then tell me that I have not understood scepticism.

So I asked what you understood the term to mean.

Rather than answering, you give me a potted history of scepticism - without telling me what you actually understand the term to mean.

Anyway, this is pointless as you're not addressing anything I've actually said or the OP. This thread is about Stoicism, not scepticism.

Do some research.

Do your own. Thankfully, no one needs the Antinatalist view of stoicism. This entire discussion is a joke started by someone who doesn't even want to be alive so excuse us if no one takes it seriously Mr Subversive.

Same difference. Business ethics is ethics applied to business.

Anyway, how is this about Stoicism? It's just you venting your frustration at me after ignorantly asserting that the belief that grief is irrational and something to be conquered is not a belief associated with Stoicism.